73 Reds Posted January 14 Posted January 14 13 hours ago, Loss Horizon said: How do you determine, which word from President Trump should be taken literally, and which is not? So is Trump that only elected official who doesn't always mean what he/she says?
UK Posted January 14 Posted January 14 1 hour ago, Luke said: Most mentally stable President xD While I am not a president and think this is not acceptable in normal environment, rarely, usually while driving, it happens to me also:)))
Spooky Posted January 14 Posted January 14 15 hours ago, 73 Reds said: The US is not leaving NATO. You're better than some here who take every word Trump utters literally, figuratively and/or exponentially - whichever happens to suit their daily narrative. Alliances are indeed important but try to take a 64,000 foot view sometimes rather than getting bogged down in the usual diatribe from the usual suspects. It’s all a matter of more equitable support from the parties who benefit the most. I hope you are right Reds but I’m not as confident as you. The Rhetoric coming out daily about seizing Greenland by military force if necessary from another NATO member is troubling to say the least. That would be the end of the alliance. Also, the proposed peace plan with Russia and Ukraine had the US acting as a mediator between Russia and NATO. How can they be a mediator if they are still in NATO. The last point I want to raise is the national security strategy policy document Cubs is such a fan of - it has a lot of troubling stuff vis a vis Europe, as though Europe is an enemy of the US.
73 Reds Posted January 14 Posted January 14 9 minutes ago, Spooky said: I hope you are right Reds but I’m not as confident as you. The Rhetoric coming out daily about seizing Greenland by military force if necessary from another NATO member is troubling to say the least. That would be the end of the alliance. Also, the proposed peace plan with Russia and Ukraine had the US acting as a mediator between Russia and NATO. How can they be a mediator if they are still in NATO. The last point I want to raise is the national security strategy policy document Cubs is such a fan of - it has a lot of troubling stuff vis a vis Europe, as though Europe is an enemy of the US. Who else besides the US would you suggest to act as Mediator? And NATO remains vital. The objective always has to be deterrence through strength. NATO provides overall strength and the US provides strength to NATO. I mean in some form or fashion it is always better to crush the enemy before it has the opportunity to act rather than having to clean up dead victims of the enemy from a pile of rubble. Alliances like NATO provide us with that opportunity and the US fully recognizes that. The enemy here is well known and it is not Europe.
Spooky Posted January 14 Posted January 14 1 minute ago, 73 Reds said: Who else besides the US would you suggest to act as Mediator? And NATO remains vital. The objective always has to be deterrence through strength. NATO provides overall strength and the US provides strength to NATO. I mean in some form or fashion it is always better to crush the enemy before it has the opportunity to act rather than having to clean up dead victims of the enemy from a pile of rubble. Alliances like NATO provide us with that opportunity and the US fully recognizes that. The enemy here is well known and it is not Europe. I agree with this view but the actions of your administration don’t really support it. Putting all the pressure on Ukraine to accept a bad deal while Russia isn’t giving up a thing. The US is forcing Ukraine to negotiate from a position of weakness. The US could just say we are going to back Ukraine for the long haul with the might of the US and NATO and then negotiate with Russia to make some concessions. The Ukraine war is grinding Russia down with over a million casualties but Putin won’t come to the table because he knows the US isn’t in the fight. Having Ukraine survive as a strong independent nation with tight ties to the West would be a huge strategic benefit for the US.
cubsfan Posted January 14 Posted January 14 1 minute ago, Spooky said: I agree with this view but the actions of your administration don’t really support it. Putting all the pressure on Ukraine to accept a bad deal while Russia isn’t giving up a thing. The US is forcing Ukraine to negotiate from a position of weakness. The US could just say we are going to back Ukraine for the long haul with the might of the US and NATO and then negotiate with Russia to make some concessions. The Ukraine war is grinding Russia down with over a million casualties but Putin won’t come to the table because he knows the US isn’t in the fight. Having Ukraine survive as a strong independent nation with tight ties to the West would be a huge strategic benefit for the US. Why isn't Europe negotiating an end to this terrible war? Putin would have come to the table if Europe was "in the fight" as you say. They had 4 years to do it before Trump arrived.
73 Reds Posted January 14 Posted January 14 1 minute ago, Spooky said: I agree with this view but the actions of your administration don’t really support it. Putting all the pressure on Ukraine to accept a bad deal while Russia isn’t giving up a thing. The US is forcing Ukraine to negotiate from a position of weakness. The US could just say we are going to back Ukraine for the long haul with the might of the US and NATO and then negotiate with Russia to make some concessions. The Ukraine war is grinding Russia down with over a million casualties but Putin won’t come to the table because he knows the US isn’t in the fight. Having Ukraine survive as a strong independent nation with tight ties to the West would be a huge strategic benefit for the US. I think you're giving Putin far too much credit for rational, western thinking. Putin will do whatever he wants to do, regardless. Its almost like dealing with terrorists. No rhyme or reason other than pure destruction. So the immediate goal should be to minimize deaths. Only then can you begin to deal with the real issues.
Spooky Posted January 14 Posted January 14 That’s true. How do you deal with terrorists? For one, you don’t negotiate with them.
Spooky Posted January 14 Posted January 14 3 minutes ago, cubsfan said: Why isn't Europe negotiating an end to this terrible war? Putin would have come to the table if Europe was "in the fight" as you say. They had 4 years to do it before Trump arrived. Just like someone posted above, the US is the strategic “brain” of NATO with all the intelligence and co-ordination. Europe doesn’t currently have these capabilities and it would take a long time to replicate them.
cubsfan Posted January 14 Posted January 14 1 minute ago, Spooky said: That’s true. How do you deal with terrorists? For one, you don’t negotiate with them. And in Europe's case - you don't fight them - just bluster about it...
73 Reds Posted January 14 Posted January 14 1 minute ago, Spooky said: That’s true. How do you deal with terrorists? For one, you don’t negotiate with them. Right, but you stop them from further killing. With Russia we can't simply destroy them, we have to stop the fighting and then try to figure out a better solution.
cubsfan Posted January 14 Posted January 14 1 minute ago, Spooky said: Just like someone posted above, the US is the strategic “brain” of NATO with all the intelligence and co-ordination. Europe doesn’t currently have these capabilities and it would take a long time to replicate them. As I said before - Europe was put on notice 8 years ago by Trump: Take NATO seriously or the USA is out. Europe decided to roll the dice and made a very foolish decision. 8 years is an eternity to build up military capabilities- especially when your collective economies are 10X larger than Russia.
Parsad Posted January 14 Posted January 14 3 hours ago, Luke said: I pray Trump gets impeached after he loses the midterms - he is too dangerous to be kept in office. I just hope that the Democrats field a centrist Presidential candidate in the next Federal election...not go the other way and go hardcore Democrat! Cheers!
dwy000 Posted January 14 Posted January 14 (edited) 2 hours ago, 73 Reds said: Nah, that's just a convenient excuse. When the bottom tier recognizes that credit requires setting something aside ahead of time, they'll find a way to do it if obtaining credit is important enough. If it isn't, the excuse opponents keep making that those folks will not be able to get credit is just that - a sorry excuse. People here, of all places should recognize that excuses suck. Its also a free country not a nanny state. Over half the country carries credit card debt and not a single one of them was forced to apply for those cards. This idea of starting over and rejecting credit for the bottom tier is just unrealistic. It will drive the market underground to the ver usurious lenders that you are railing against. Not to mention crash out the entire economy. And if you truly believe this you should be supporting the cap on overdraft fees but wont because it was Trump that cancelled them. Edited January 14 by dwy000
thowed Posted January 14 Posted January 14 27 minutes ago, Parsad said: I just hope that the Democrats field a centrist Presidential candidate in the next Federal election...not go the other way and go hardcore Democrat! Cheers! Amen, brother!
cubsfan Posted January 14 Posted January 14 30 minutes ago, Parsad said: I just hope that the Democrats field a centrist Presidential candidate in the next Federal election...not go the other way and go hardcore Democrat! Cheers! Yup, the way the Socialist Democrats are going, they are likely to nominate Maduro.
73 Reds Posted January 14 Posted January 14 35 minutes ago, Parsad said: I just hope that the Democrats field a centrist Presidential candidate in the next Federal election...not go the other way and go hardcore Democrat! Cheers! Pragmatists on both sides would agree with that.
changegonnacome Posted January 14 Posted January 14 (edited) 16 hours ago, Parsad said: Call it what you want...those are the numbers. Just like Trump benefited from the jobs out of the Biden administration as he took office. But Trump fucked up those numbers with his tariffs and big beautiful bills! Big picture when you get down to it Trump promised a few key things - cut out the noise, the trith social posts here's what he's done: He promised to> 'Fix Inflation': YoY Inflation was 2.9% in December 2024 just before he took office its now 2.7% (it was 3% as recently as Sept 2025) Its basically been bouncing around in the same zipcode since he took office. No meaningful change & consumers are still sick of it as evidenced by consumer sentiment survey. Verdict: FAIL 'Fix' the Economy: Unemployment was 4% on inauguration day its now 4.4% 2025 is one of the lowest years on record for job growth GDP data isnt out yet for the full year so we cant compare 2024 to 2025 Verdict: FAIL Bring back manufacturing jobs: Since liberation day 70,000 people have been liberated from their manufacturing jobs i.e. they lost their job. The US in aggregate lost manufacturing jobs in 2025. Verdict: FAIL Fix Immigration i.e. stop it Deportations way up, Southern border crossings way down, ICE staffed up, border restrictions increased Verdict: PASS The administration knows they are floundering on the economy.........the talking point I've seen trotted out is that 2025 was about setting the table for future success and the dividends of the tough choices made in 25 are to come in 2026, 2027, 2028. Thats a reasonable position I think - so lets see how 26 and beyond plays out but also we can be cold eyed on 2025 - it was nothing to write home about for Trump on the economy (as measured by jobs/inflation/manufacturing) he presided over an economy that decelerated, manufacturing jobs went the wrong way and elevated inflation remained elevated. Edited January 14 by changegonnacome
cubsfan Posted January 14 Posted January 14 4 minutes ago, changegonnacome said: Big picture when you get down to it Trump promised a few key things - cut out the noise, the trith social posts here's what he's done: He promised to> 'Fix Inflation': YoY Inflation was 2.9% in December 2024 just before he took office its now 2.7% (it was 3% as recently as Sept 2025) Its basically been bouncing around in the same zipcode since he took office. No meaningful change & consumers are still sick of it as evidenced by consumer sentiment survey. Verdict: FAIL 'Fix' the Economy: Unemployment was 4% on inauguration day its now 4.4% 2025 is one of the lowest years on record for job growth GDP data isnt out yet for the full year so we cant compare 2024 to 2025 Verdict: FAIL Bring back manufacturing jobs: 2025 was one of the worst years on recent record for manufacturing the sector. Since liberation day 70,000 people have been liberated from their manufacturing jobs i.e. they lost their job Verdict: FAIL Fix Immigration i.e. stop it Deportations way up, Southern border crossings way down, ICE staffed up, border restrictions increased Verdict: PASS The administration knows they are floundering on the economy.........the talking point I've seen trotted out is that 2025 was about setting the table for future success and the dividends of the tough choices made in 25 are to come in 2026, 2027, 2028. Thats a reasonable position I think - so lets see how 26 and beyond plays out but also we can be cold eyed on 2025 - it was nothing to write home about for Trump on the economy (as measured by jobs/inflation/manufacturing) he presided over an economy that decelerated, manufacturing jobs went the wrong way and elevated inflation remained elevated. Trump will be in big trouble unless economic progress continues. Not many Americans care about foreign policy - they want their own lives improved. It remains to be seen whether he can turn the battleship before the midterms. I give it a 50/50 chance. I was right out of college early in Jimmy Carter's first term. Like Biden, Carter was naive and a disaster, although his intentions were noble. I didn't have any money, but had a good job - so had no frame of reference for economic policy. Reagan won the 1980 election of course - on a platform of "fixing" the US economy that Carter owned. High inflation, economic malaise, high energy, etc, etc. So there was a tight re-election race between Mondale and Reagan in 1984. Reagan's economic plan took years to produce. Reagan was in real trouble when the Mondale/Ferraro ticket was finalized at the DNC 5 months before the election. But in Q3 1984, Reagan's economy grew at a blistering 7%+ rate. Reagan won in a landslide. We will see what happens - but his economic plan is going to be the key to midterms & 2028.
changegonnacome Posted January 14 Posted January 14 (edited) 43 minutes ago, cubsfan said: We will see what happens - but his economic plan is going to be the key to midterms & 2028. Yep as I said....I think the adminstations position that 2025 was about setting the table for growth is fair enough nobody can argue they didn't do alot of things in 2025 when they got in. 43 minutes ago, cubsfan said: But in Q3 1984, Reagan's economy grew at a blistering 7%+ rate. Reagan won in a landslide. Agree - this is the bull case that things accelerate from here....however without looking at the 'Reagan recovery' I can assure you it was blistering GDP growth accompanied by employment growth and underlying real wage growth....the last two are the real formula for election success. I think Trump gets impressive GDP growth simply by virtue of the huge capex wave associated with AI investments......but ultimately people don't give a hoot about GDP growth - its jobs and real wage growth they feel and so presiding over an economy with impressive but jobless GDP growth is not a recipe for election success. The danger for Trump as the perennial marketer salesman (and we've seen this already with Oval Address) is that he oversells jobless GDP growth by telling people the economy is GREAT when they know it isnt for them. My gut on 2026 is this is probably what we are in for - endless marketing of AI inflated GDP figures while the non-AI economy (jobs/wage growth) tells a different story. That is potentially a politically toxic mix for the GOP at the midterms - you cant tell people things are great when they know it isn't. But lets see....there's a story to tell for sure that there's going to be lots of dividends to come from all Trump changes instituted in 25. Edited January 14 by changegonnacome
flesh Posted January 14 Posted January 14 17 hours ago, Parsad said: The jobs numbers during Biden's era are huge...unemployment fell from 6.7% to 4.1%. He increased the federal workforce by only 6% or about 180,000...while jobs increased by nearly 15M! The bullshit around Biden's lack of jobs and skewed by federal government hirings is exactly that...bullshit! Cheers! I was commenting on an unnecessary increase in federal jobs. It's not hard to have fantastic jobs numbers when you prolong a shut down of the economy and then open it up, it's expected. Moreover, if you oversee the largest stimulus in history it's going to seriously help. It's like running a company and going into massive debt to hire employees and reporting to stockholders your doing great, employees up and debts ramping massively, all's well. Is that bull shit? The counterfactual would be if he didn't open the economy back up, would the numbers have been nearly as high etc. ? Now, if you have a methodology that attempts to strip out reversion to the mean jobs numbers plus trendline growth, strips out massive stimulus, strips out above trend fed employee growth, I'd be happy to see it.
cubsfan Posted January 14 Posted January 14 9 minutes ago, changegonnacome said: Yep as I said....I think the adminstations position that 2025 was about setting the table for growth is fair enough nobody can argue they didn't do alot of things in 2025 when they got in. Agree - this is the bull case that things accelerate from here....however without looking at the 'Reagan recovery' I can assure you it was blistering GDP growth accompanied by employment growth and underlying real wage growth....the last two are the real formula for election success. I think Trump gets impressive GDP growth simply by virtue of the huge capex wave associated with AI investments......but ultimately people don't give a hoot about GDP growth - its jobs and real wage growth they feel and so presiding over an economy with impressive but jobless GDP growth is not a recipe for election success. The danger for Trump as the perennial marketer salesman (and we've seen this already with Oval Address) is that he oversells jobless GDP growth by telling people the economy is GREAT when they know it isnt for them. My gut on 2026 is this is probably what we are in for - endless marketing of AI inflated GDP figures while the non-AI economy (jobs/wage growth) tells a different. That is potentially a politically toxic mix for the GOP at the midterms - you cant tell people things are great when they know it isn't. But lets see....there's a story to tell for sure that there's going to be lots of dividends to come from all Trump changes instituted in 25. Damn, @changegonnacome - I knew I liked you! Agree 100%
Loss Horizon Posted January 14 Posted January 14 17 hours ago, cubsfan said: The US spent a fortune on the war in Ukraine. Yes. And it was the first nation where the US got involved, which is determined to fight, and which has a popular support for American help. In comparison, when the US spent a fortune on Afghanistan, Afghani folded weapons and surrendered to Taliban the moment US army left. 17 hours ago, cubsfan said: Trump's campaign promise was NOT to get the US involved in the war in Ukraine. It was telegraphed loud and clear that NO US troops would ever be involved in Ukraine. I don't see much difference from Biden's policy here. No US units ever entered the battle, and none will. For Europe and Ukraine, the biggest change of new administration is not only stop of financial help, but also withdrawal of military capabilities, even for purchase. It's not about troops and not about money, it's purely political withdrawal. I understand that the talk about troops is only to make political messages heavier. But in fact, Ukrainian war was never an American war at all, unlike Venezuela, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea and others in the long list.
LC Posted January 14 Posted January 14 US allowing Ukraine to fall to Putin because Trump is mad at Europe (if that’s even the real reason) is the dumbest international political decision made by America. Stupidity only challenged by the domestic political decision to wage war against Americans with Trump’s gestapo of proud boy ICE goons.
cubsfan Posted January 14 Posted January 14 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Loss Horizon said: I don't see much difference from Biden's policy here. You can say whatever you like. Trump campaigned on NO involvement in Ukraine. It's Europe's war, not ours. The message was overwhelmingly well received by voters. Elections have consequences - and Europe prayed that Trump would lose - since they were caught with their pants down. Americans want no part of the Ukrainian quagmire. Edited January 14 by cubsfan
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now